A r c h i v e d I n f o r m a t i o n
To Assure the Free Appropriate Public Education of all Children with Disabilities - 1995
The Seventeenth Annual Report to Congress examines the progress being made toward implementing the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The purposes of the Act are summarized below.
- To provide assistance to States to develop early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, and to assure a free appropriate public education to all children and youth with disabilities.
- To assure that the rights of children and youth with disabilities from birth to age 21 and their families are protected.
- To assist States and localities to provide for early intervention services and the education of all children with disabilities.
- To assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to provide early intervention services and educate children with disabilities.
This Report provides a description of the activities undertaken to implement the Act and an assessment of the impact and effectiveness of its requirements. The following brief summaries provide highlights of the information presented in the chapters of the Report.
Chapter 1: Students with Disabilities Served, Placement and Exiting Patterns, and Personnel Who Provide Special Education and Related Services
National statistics and analyses generated from State-reported data submitted annually to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) are provided. A brief retrospective analysis of Federal funding patterns for special education is also included.
- OSEP's Division of Innovation and Development and the Severe Disabilities Branch in the Division of Education Services have funded a number of projects over the last decade that support inclusive school practices. Some of these projects have focused on specific research issues, while others have been demonstration projects or institutes.
- During the last five years, regular classroom placements for students age 6 through 21 have increased by almost 10 percent. The use of resource rooms has decreased, and all other placement settings have remained stable. In part, these changes may be attributed to improved data collection and reporting methods in several States.
- In 1992-93, 95 percent of students with disabilities were served in regular school buildings. Students age 6 through 11 are most likely to be served in regular classroom settings. This continues the trend of placing more children in inclusive settings.
- During FY 1994, $2.149 billion was distributed to States for the provision of special education to children with disabilities through IDEA, Part B. The average per-child allocation has remained relatively stable over the past three years, and was $413 in FY 1994.
- The Chapter 1 (SOP) program was not reauthorized under the Improving America's Schools Act that reauthorized ESEA. Beginning July 1, 1995, funding for services to all eligible children and youth age 3 through 21 will be provided under IDEA, Part B. In FY 1994, the average per pupil Chapter 1 (SOP) allocation was $387.
- Combined Chapter 1 (SOP) and Part B funding increased by $87.4 million, or 4 percent, in FY 1994. However, the rise in appropriations has been offset by increases in the number of students served in these programs.
- A total of 5,373,077 infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities from birth through age 21 were served under Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP) during the 1993-94 school year. This figure represents an increase of 4.2 percent, the largest yearly increase since the inception of IDEA in 1976.
- Students with learning disabilities continue to account for more than half of all students with disabilities (51.1 percent). Students with speech or language impairments, mental retardation, and serious emotional disturbance account for an additional 41.4 percent of all students age 6 through 21 with disabilities.
- Although students with traumatic brain injuries, other health impairments and autism still account for less than 3 percent of all students with disabilities, these are the most rapidly growing categories. The size of the increase in the number of students with traumatic brain injury and autism is probably related to the fact that these reporting categories were only recently established. The increase in the number of students with other health impairments appears to be the result of growth in the service population. Specifically, the number of students identified as having attention deficit disorder (ADD) appears to be increasing.
- In 1992, OSEP revised the form used to collect information about students exiting educational programs. The new form collects data on the number of students age 14 and older exiting the special education system, rather than the number of those students exiting the educational system in general. Data on students 14 and older exiting with a diploma or certificate of completion show little change over the past five years. This trend is consistent across disability categories.
- The results of the PASS (Performance Assessment for Self-Sufficiency) system pilot study, which examined the anticipated service needs of students exiting the school system, found that the service in highest demand in a sample of States was case management. Alternative education and recreation and leisure services were also high in demand.
- The number of teachers employed to serve children and youth with disabilities age 6 through 21 from 1991-92 to 1992-93 increased 0. 7 percent. The largest special education teacher category in school year 1992-93 was the specific learning disabilities category.
- Teacher aides accounted for over half (55. 7 percent) of all staff other than special education teachers employed to serve students with disabilities age 3 through 21. However, States also reported that the area of greatest need was teacher aides. States reported needing an additional 5,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) teacher aides to fill vacancies and to replace personnel who were not fully certified or licensed.
Chapter 2: Meeting the Needs of Infants, Toddlers, and Preschool Children with Disabilities
The chapter provides an update on the implementation of the Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers (Part H) and the Preschool Grants Program (Section 619 of Part B). It includes a detailed analysis of the State-reported data and OSEP-funded projects related to serving children with disabilities ages birth through 5.
- FY 1993 marked the first year all States and jurisdictions were required to assure full implementation of the Part H program in order to receive funding. Appropriations for the program rose by 23 percent from $172. 8 million to $213. 2 million.
- States reported that the number of eligible infants and toddlers served under all programs on December 1, 1993 rose to 154,065 (1. 3 percent of the total birth through 2 population). However, despite numerous changes in the data collection systems within States, the percentage of the total birth through 2 population served has remained fairly stable over the past 3 years.
- Among all eligible infants and toddlers, the home remains the most frequent service site, followed by outpatient services and early intervention classroom settings. The 1992-93 data shows that (1) family training, counseling, and home visits, (2) special instruction, and (3) speech and language pathology were the services most often provided.
- Information on personnel employed and needed to serve infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families has been difficult for States to collect. Therefore, new personnel data collection forms have been developed, and underwent field tests in early 1995. However, in general, the largest category of personnel employed to serve this population is paraprofessionals, followed by special educators, "other" personnel, and speech and language pathologists. Speech and language pathologists were the personnel in greatest demand.
- Implementation issues in the Part H program still persist. Revisions in State data collection systems are underway. In addition, States are struggling to coordinate the wide range of multiple funding sources, legislation, and programs that serve infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families.
- In FY 1994, $339 million was appropriated for the Preschool Grants Program, 4 percent more than in the $326 million appropriated in FY 1993. However, during the 1993-94 school year, 493,525 preschoolers with disabilities received services, 8.3 percent more than in 1992-93.
- During the 1992-93 school year, nearly 19,000 FTE special education teachers were employed to serve children with disabilities age 3 through 5. An additional 2,209 FTE teachers were needed.
- States report that coordination between preschool programs and other programs continues to increase. According to a NEC*TAS survey, 15 States and jurisdictions reported that the focus of their Part H Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC) is programs for children from birth through age 5. Interagency agreements with Head Start also continue to strengthen. Although transition from Part H to preschool programs continues to be a concern, many States are developing policies or new transition agreements to meet their specific needs.
- In FY 1994, the Early Education Program for Children with Disabilities (EEPCD) supported 116 projects: 34 demonstration projects, 45 outreach projects, 21 in service training projects, 4 experimental projects, 6 research institutes, 5 statewide data system projects, and 1 national technical assistance center.
- The Department has sponsored studies of specific issues related to the Part H program. Two studies, "The Feasibility of Determining the Cost of Providing Early Intervention Services," and "The Use of Family Payment Systems in the Part H Program," analyze the cost issues related to providing Part H services in selected States.
Chapter 3: The Relationship of Secondary School Experiences to the Early Post-School Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities
This chapter presents highlights of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) regarding selected aspects of the programs, performance, and post-school results of students with disabilities who attended regular secondary school.
- NLTS data were used to describe secondary school programs attended by students with disabilities between 1985 and 1990, and the level of supports offered within schools that had inclusion programs at that time needs to be considered.
- The relationship between more time in regular education and positive results as a young adult needs to be studied further. The data suggest that frequently students with less significant disabilities spent more time in regular education. The data also suggest that increased time in regular education enhanced students overall intellectual and social competence by providing better preparation for postsecondary experiences.
- Thirty percent of students with disabilities who had been enrolled in ninth through twelfth grades left school by dropping out. An additional 8 percent left school before ninth grade. As might be expected, students who dropped out were less likely to enroll in postsecondary vocational programs.
- The NLTS found that almost all youth with disabilities had access to some form of vocational education in secondary school. The data indicated that vocational training contributed significantly to the probability of competitive employment.
- The amount of attention currently devoted to school reform at multiple levels within the educational system is an indicator that change is desired. Information on how to offer supports to students in inclusive settings is increasing.
- The American Council on Education reported that the number of freshmen with disabilities entering college tripled between 1978 and 1991 (from 2.2 percent to 8.8 percent of all freshmen). However, the NLTS data suggests that, among youth with disabilities out of secondary school up to 3 years, 16.5 percent enrolled in academic programs and 14.7 enrolled in vocational postsecondary programs.
- Among students with disabilities who did participate in postsecondary academic programs, a large majority (70 percent) spent 75 percent or more of their time in high school regular education.
- Students with disabilities who spent more time in regular education in high school were more likely to be employed and to make higher salaries in the 3 years after high school than students who had taken fewer regular education courses. However, youth with disabilities as a group were employed at rates well below those of their peers in the general population.
- Fewer youth with disabilities were living independently shortly after high school than were their peers in the general population. The NLTS found that 28 percent of youth with disabilities who had been out of high school up to three years were living independently. Individuals with visual impairments were the highest percentage of youth living independently. Individuals with multiple disabilities, mental retardation, orthopedic impairments or other health impairments had low independent living rates. Two-thirds of those living independently after high school had participated in regular education 75 percent or more of their time in high school.
- Youth who had spent more time in regular education were more likely to be fully participating in their communities. Over 50 percent of students with disabilities who spent 75 percent or more of their time in regular education were employed or in school, not socially isolated, and either married or engaged.
Chapter 4: Results for Students with Disabilities
There is concern nationally about the educational performance of all students. The specific concern about educational results for students with disabilities is also growing because, in part, there has been very little information about the educational results of this group of students. This chapter describes some of the work of the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO), which has been funded by OSEP since 1990 to address the issues related to educational results for students with disabilities. This chapter focuses on NCEO's ongoing analysis of current State and national assessment practices for students with disabilities.
- States are making progress in several aspects of the State-level assessment of educational results for students with disabilities. Three critical areas in which progress is evident are: identifying students with disabilities participating in assessments, developing guidelines for participation of students with disabilities, and developing guidelines for accommodations.
- Of the 59 States and Outlying Areas surveyed in 1993, all but six included students with disabilities in their State-level assessments, or else did not have a State-level assessment. In States and Outlying Areas where students with disabilities do participate in assessments, 26 reported that less than 50 percent of their students with disabilities participated in their statewide assessments, and 13 reported that more than 50 percent of their students with disabilities participated in statewide assessments. The remaining 14 States reported that they were unable to determine what percentage of their students with disabilities are included in statewide assessments.
- In 1993, 34 States and 4 Outlying Areas indicated they had written guidelines about the participation of students with disabilities in statewide assessments. Most States and Outlying Areas used more than one criterion when deciding who should participate in statewide assessments. The two most common criteria used were the characteristics of the student's program/curriculum and recommendations previously stipulated in the student's IEP.
- The number of States that provide accommodations or modifications during statewide assessments has increased over each of the past three years. NCEO has identified four broad areas of typical accommodations. They are accommodations in timing/scheduling, presentation format, setting, and response format. Alterations in presentation format and in timing/scheduling were the two most frequent accommodations made.
- In 1994, NCEO developed a set of recommendations for State guidelines on participation in and accommodations for statewide assessments NCEO made recommendations in three areas: participation, accommodations and adaptations, and implementation checks.
- In 1992, the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) included individuals with disabilities. Although methodological inadequacies may have affected the reliability of the results, the NALS report included the results of the literacy assessment of individuals in ten self-reported disability condition categories. The results showed that overall individuals with disabilities were more likely than individuals without disabilities who participated in the survey to perform at lower literacy levels. However, within almost every disability group, in each literacy category, there were some individuals with disabilities who performed at the top two levels of literacy.
Chapter 5: Financing Services for Students with Disabilities
This chapter provides an overview and summary of the work completed by the Center for Special Education Finance (CSEF) during its first two years of operation (FY 1993 and FY 1994). CSEF has been funded by OSEP to provide policy makers and administrators at the Federal, State, and local levels with data, analyses, expertise, and opportunities to share information about special education finance issues. CSEF has completed the following projects: A survey of State educational funding reform trends, formulation of a set of fiscal policy guidelines that promote inclusion, and a case study of a State-level cost analysis project since its inception.
- In 1994, CSEF surveyed State special education personnel in all 50 States concerning special education reforms that might be taking place in their States. CSEF learned that during the last 5 years, 18 States had implemented some type of fiscal reform, and 28 States were considering major changes. Twenty States were undecided about carrying out any specific reforms at the time of the survey. Respondents identified five major issues driving reform:(1) the need for more flexible ways to provide special education; (2) the need to eliminate incentives that lead to restrictive placements; (3) the fact that reforms are driven by fiscal accountability; (4) rising special education costs and enrollments; and (5) the influence of support for more inclusive educational practices.
- Several States now provide funds to districts based on some form of a census-based funding system, in an attempt to break the link between funding and local policies that determine how students with disabilities are identified and placed in special education programs. Other States are adopting a single funding weight for all special education students.
- CSEF has developed a set of guidelines that show how policy makers can develop fiscal policies that promote inclusion. They are: (1) remove fiscal incentives that favor restrictive and separate placements, (2) make decisions about the extent to which the State wishes to encourage private special education placements, (3) develop funding systems in which funds follow students as they move to less restrictive placements, (4) enhance fiscal support for district training, and (5) fund and encourage the use of appropriate interventions for all students.
- CSEF conducted a special education cost study of Kentucky's approach to special education funding. According to the study's best overall estimate, the State and federal revenues were apparently adequate to support current levels of special education across the State. The study also showed that, despite a high degree of parity between special education revenues and costs statewide, considerable differences in the relative degree of alignment across individual types of districts were found. On average, the ratio of expenditures to revenues for special education were lowest in districts serving the poorest students and those showing the highest special education identification rates. Finally, the study showed that the funding weights currently in use in the State were not aligned with the costs of educating some categories of special education students.
Chapter 6: Assisting States and Localities in Educating all Children with Disabilities
This chapter describes the efforts OSEP undertakes to assist State and local educational agencies in educating all children and youth with disabilities and the refinements OSEP has made to its monitoring system.
- Each State must meet a number of statutory and regulatory requirements in order to receive Federal financial assistance under the Part B program. To ensure that SEAs are accomplishing their responsibilities consistent with the Part B and Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR)
requirements, OSEP uses a multifaceted program review process.
- Recognizing that an effective accountability system is critical to ensure continuous progress in achieving educational results for children with disabilities, OSEP and its customers have worked over the past two years to strengthen the system so that it will--in conjunction with OSEP's research, innovation, and technical assistance efforts--serve as an effective vehicle to support systemic reform that will produce better results for students with disabilities, while recognizing the need to continue to look at procedural compliance.
- OSEP recognizes that while all IDEA requirements are important, some of its requirements have a more direct relationship to student results than others. OSEP appreciates the importance of focusing monitoring activities on the requirements with the most direct relationship with student results, and on emphasizing those requirements in the corrective action process. OSEP understands that primary responsibility for each State's compliance with IDEA lies with the State, rather than with OSEP, and that parents must have access to effective systems for ensuring compliance. It is, therefore, critical that OSEP's monitoring system also focus on each State's systems for general supervision.
- In the 1994-95 school year, OSEP refocused its monitoring procedures to place emphasis on those requirements that relate most directly to improving student results. Further, OSEP has sought and used broad public input in the monitoring process, has worked closely with States to ensure corrective action that results in legal compliance and improved results for students, and has continued to provide extensive technical assistance to States to assist them in meeting the requirements of Part B in a manner that supports improved results for students.
Chapter 7: Serving Students with Disabilities in Rural Areas
This chapter discusses the unique challenges that rural special educators and administrators face in providing a free appropriate public education to students with disabilities living in rural areas.
- Multiple definitions of the term rural exist. For the purposes of this Report, the Common Core of Data (CCD) Public School Universe file and the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) were used as primary data sources. Based on data from the CCD Public Universe file for the 1989-90 school year, approximately 28 percent of regular public schools were located in rural areas. Data from SASS for the school year 1990-91 suggest that 27 percent of all public schools were located in rural areas.
- Rural districts serve a greater percentage of students with disabilities in regular classrooms than do non-rural districts. In rural areas, only 14.6 percent of students with disabilities were in full-time special education programs, while in non-rural areas 25.3 percent of students with disabilities were in full-time special education programs. The data also indicates that both rural and non-rural districts serve 5.5 percent of students with disabilities outside of their home districts.
- During the 1990-91 school-year, rural (10.8 percent) and non-rural (10.0 percent) districts served very similar percentages of students with disabilities. Percentages within each disability category were also similar.
- Rural districts face many challenges in meeting the needs of all their students, including those with disabilities. Rural districts serve a larger percentage of children living in poverty (22.9 percent) than non-rural populations (20.6 percent), and rural districts are more likely to serve children who live in poverty for long periods of time. The geographic isolation common to rural districts can impede every aspect of the special education process (identification and assessment, service delivery, and availability of adequate personnel).
- Recruiting and retaining staff qualified to serve students with disabilities is particularly difficult in rural areas. Many professionals feel socially, culturally, and professionally isolated. Several innovative OSEP-funded programs have been developed to increase personnel recruitment and retention rates.
- The NLTS provides a great deal of information on the transition of youth with disabilities from secondary school to early adulthood. It also provides information on secondary students with disabilities in rural areas. This data indicates that secondary students with disabilities in rural areas spend over half of their class time in academic subjects, and that 53.5 percent received job training during their most recent school year. Similarly, 50.6 percent of students in urban setting received job training. In addition, 62 percent of secondary students with disabilities in rural schools took some type of vocational education during their most recent year of schooling, while 58.9 percent of students in urban settings enrolled in vocational education courses. Secondary students with disabilities in rural areas were most likely to study construction trades (32 percent), office occupations (22 percent), and agriculture (20 percent).
[List of Acronyms]
[School-Age Students with Disabilities Served, Placement and Exiting Patterns, and Personnel Who Provide Special Education and Related Services]